MarkW Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Unlike the F-22, there are no options for a manned strike platform the U.S. is willing to consider. That's probably the biggest reason we haven't heard any serious talk of U.S. numbers going down. The cuts coming down now are more common sense deferrments than anything. 1700 or more is more likely IMO than not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Well, we may get the F-35s but what are we going to fire from them ? :huh: >>> NGM Article <<< Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Av8fan Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I find the cancellation of the replacement for the HARM to troubling. Unless there is something else in the pipe line? If I recall correctly some of these new Sam systems out range the HARM? I know that stealth reduces detection ranges, but, still, from what little I know of SEAD, the job is dangerous enough is it not? YGBSM. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I find the cancellation of the replacement for the HARM to troubling. Unless there is something else in the pipe line? If I recall correctly some of these new Sam systems out range the HARM? I know that stealth reduces detection ranges, but, still, from what little I know of SEAD, the job is dangerous enough is it not? YGBSM. You really can't beat the AMRAAM and HARM. Why invent in something new when you can upgrade the old into infinity? (tongue in cheek) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 External hardpoints testing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 More pron (your dirty undercarriage is showing) and Dave's article: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120220/DEFREG02/302200012/F-35-Begins-Flight-Tests-Equipped-External-Missiles Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 >>> Articl 1 <<< >>> Article 2 <<< See, I don't just post bad news in this thread ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 More good news ... >>> Article <<< Some bad news ... >>> Article <<< & >>> Article <<< Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 More pron (your dirty undercarriage is showing) and Dave's article: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120220/DEFREG02/302200012/F-35-Begins-Flight-Tests-Equipped-External-Missiles Any information on how the F-35 radar signature compared to the Super Hornet when all external stores are loaded? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 It will be better. UPDATE 1-Turkey keeps plan to buy 100 F-35 fighter jets http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL5E8DN2IM20120223 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 >>> Article <<< How much ammo does the gunpod carry ? Can't be much ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Barr Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 220 rounds vs 182 internal on the 'A' Regards Jim Barr Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) More news: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120223/DEFREG02/302230010 Edited February 24, 2012 by MarkW Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Any information on how the F-35 radar signature compared to the Super Hornet when all external stores are loaded? It will be better. I understand the arithametic. If they carry the same external store, the sum of radar cross sections of the stores plus airframe will give the F-35 an advantage in number. The real question is whether this difference in number has any real impact on the mission that requires the A/C to carry a full load of external stores? Does it justify the use of a more expensive (F-35) airframe for this type of mission? I understand that it is not the basic objective of the F-35 design and that's why the test of hard points are not carried out earlier. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 I understand the arithametic. If they carry the same external store, the sum of radar cross sections of the stores plus airframe will give the F-35 an advantage in number. The real question is whether this difference in number has any real impact on the mission that requires the A/C to carry a full load of external stores? Does it justify the use of a more expensive (F-35) airframe for this type of mission? I understand that it is not the basic objective of the F-35 design and that's why the test of hard points are not carried out earlier. You are kind of missing the point. The F-35 won't be stealthy enough with external stores to be better in a tactically significant way than a F-18E/F. The hard point testing is also relatively independent of the internal bay testing. The driver here is ensuring the basic handling is what you want before you goon up the aero with pylons. The F-35 will bring range, payload, and a superior multi spectrum sensor/EW package over the SuperHornet. Unless you are plinking targets that are undefended and in plain sight (happens all the time in Afghanistan), the F-35 brings to the table the ability to close the kill chain much better than anything else out there. Which, by the way, includes all those targets in Afghanistan that are NOT in plain site. Now, more news. F-35 is moving towards real flights. What this article means is that regular pilots will soon be able to fly non instrumented jets, as opposed to the current flight test control room environment of right now. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120226/DEFREG02/302260012 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 And the hits keep a coming... http://www.govexec.com/defense/2012/02/pentagon-defends-1-trillion-fighter-jet-fleet/41303/ http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123291582 I also heard a rumor the AF MFR has come through, but I don't have a source for that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rapier01 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 And the hits keep a coming... http://www.govexec.com/defense/2012/02/pentagon-defends-1-trillion-fighter-jet-fleet/41303/ http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123291582 I also heard a rumor the AF MFR has come through, but I don't have a source for that. It did... http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120228/DEFREG02/302280012/Local-Area-Flights-Allowed-F-35?odyssey=tab|topnews|img|FRONTPAGE Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Excellent!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ixgr1 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 link Now, is there pressure ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 link Now, is there pressure ? Not really. Its an article that says if it costs too much or takes too long they Might cancel it. Its as set as erasable ink on recyclable paper. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rapier01 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Some more details about Eglin http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120228/DEFREG02/302280012/Eglin-Pilots-Should-Take-Air-F-35-Next-Week-USAF?odyssey=tab|topnews|img|FRONTPAGE Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 F-35 will continue to get controversial press up until it comes into regular service and once doing so displays itself at minimum in the various training competitions such as RED FLAG, MAPLE FLAG, TIGER MEET, WILLIAM TELL, and TOP GUN. Once it does so and to the hopes of all involved proves to be a competent platform, then it will see better, less controversial press. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ixgr1 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Not really. Its an article that says if it costs too much or takes too long they Might cancel it. Its as set as erasable ink on recyclable paper. Yup, Thats what it says .... Dispite my-standpiont on this, I am getting nervous for all the "F-35 or Bust" industry now reliying on this venture. This, unfortunatly, is not the only DEFENCE MINISTER being officaly concerned. F-35 will continue to get controversial press up until it comes into regular service and once doing so displays itself at minimum in the various training competitions such as RED FLAG, MAPLE FLAG, TIGER MEET, WILLIAM TELL, and TOP GUN. Once it does so and to the hopes of all involved proves to be a competent platform, then it will see better, less controversial press. -same was said about the F-111 ? Edited March 1, 2012 by ixgr1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Yup, Thats what it says .... Dispite my-standpiont on this, I am getting nervous for all the "F-35 or Bust" industry now reliying on this venture. This, unfortunatly, is not the only DEFENCE MINISTER being officaly concerned. -same was said about the F-111 ? F-111 turned out to be a good strike platform. From what I read and recall crews that flew it felt it to be a quality platform and as it developed into a good night and adverse weather strike aircraft. No the F-111 was never a multi-role or air to air bird but in dumping bombs not a bad machine at all. You Aussies used them the longest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ixgr1 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 F-111 turned out to be a good strike platform. From what I read and recall crews that flew it felt it to be a quality platform and as it developed into a good night and adverse weather strike aircraft. No the F-111 was never a multi-role or air to air bird but in dumping bombs not a bad machine at all. You Aussies used them the longest. -all true....BUT The '111 was also conceived as a multi service/use platform. As is the the F-35 ? In this modern world of strike fighters, I hope the F-35 multi-use is successful. If not a lot of pepole are going to "lose the farm" ? (and THIS is my concern) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.